Palin: House passage of debt deal is a victory for the Tea Party

posted at 12:00 pm on August 2, 2011 by Tina Korbe

It seems to be the new talking point: The deal is a victory for conservatives not because of what it does (which is, not much!), but because it supposedly represents a change in the direction of the debate. Once, Washington discussed what to grow. Now, Washington discusses what to cut. Even former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has echoed the theme — but with qualifications. The Wall Street Journal Washington Wire reports:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said Monday’s House vote to lift the debt ceiling was a victory for the tea party, proving that conservative activists had shifted the conversation in Washington.

“We shall take this victory and make sure our politicians in office today are learning from this victory,” Ms. Palin said Monday night on Fox News, where she is a paid contributor. “It’s not a 100% pure genuine victory. We just handed the most liberal president, I believe, in U.S. history a $2.4 billion debt increase.” …

Ms. Palin didn’t fully embrace the deal, saying she had plenty of problems with the compromise between the White House and congressional leaders, including Republican House Speaker John Boehner. In the past, the former governor said she was not convinced America would face a default if lawmakers did not raise the debt ceiling by Aug. 2.

Meanwhile, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), one of the founders of the Tea Party Caucus in Congress (along with GOP presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann), says the deal can’t possibly be touted as a win.

“The Tea Party is not calling this a victory,” Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said today on Fox News. “I’m certainly not.”

It’s perplexing, really — the way so many conservatives changed their minds at the last minute. About a week ago, Palin called for any supposedly small-government freshman who voted for a debt ceiling increase to face a “contested” primary. Now, she’s silent on the subject of the 59 House freshmen who voted for the deal. And what about the 59 freshmen who voted that way in the first place? What accounts for their support? What accounts for Boehner’s comment that he got “98 percent” of what he wanted, when he clearly didn’t?

The effort to spin this compromise as a conservative victory is impressive — and it makes sense. No one wants to declare themselves diminished politically. And this deal enables leadership to tout its ability to garner votes, to prevent default, etc., etc. etc. But it’s still just a political victory. It’s not a solution. And to rest too much on the laurels of maybe-no-tax-hikes and at-least-it’s-not-a-clean-debt-ceiling-increase obscures the distance the country still has to go. Better to stay focused on the facts: The nation is still spending money it doesn’t have (we’re borrowing about $2 million every minute of every day!). The government is still growing (keep in mind the cuts are to increases in spending over the next 10 years).

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

I think Beto is speaking in third person, saying that she, “this lady” Beto Ochoa, would like to sell your mother to pirates and claim “she”, Beto Ochoa, found a way to help pay your gas bill. Maybe, a community organizer who helps people pay their gas bills?

Or, perhaps, “she”, Beto Ochoa, is a ruthless pirate merchant who is somehow involved with Big Oil and Gas and has a side business of supplying grandmothers to third world countries like Somalia…

But, why she posted this strange message here is somewhat confusing. I’d think she’d want to keep her business dealings on the down low…

Cut him a break. I’ll take lame attempts at humor over his usual posting of Trig Truther links. Plus a Dem who likens The Undefeated to Triumph of the Will while ignoring the fact that any given two hours of MSNBC contains more pro Obama material than Bannon’s documentary contains about Palin is too delusional to pay much mind.

Palin: If we were terrorists Obama would be wanting to pal around with us

Sarah Palin says that she isn’t just going to roll over and say to the left “hit me baby one more time, call me a terrorist again, call me a racist”, but rather she’s going to call them out on their hypocrisy. That includes Obama, of course, who she said wouldn’t have a problem with the Tea Party if they were really domestic terrorists:

If we were really domestic terrorists, shoot, President Obama would be wanting to pal around with us wouldn’t he? I mean he didn’t have a problem with paling around with Bill Ayers back in the day when he kicked off his political career in Bill Ayers apartment, and shaking hands with Chavez and saying he doesn’t need any preconditions with meeting dictators or wanting to read US Miranda rights to alleged suspected foreign terrorists. No if we were real domestic terrorists I think President Obama wouldn’t have a problem with us.

Aww, that’s cute. You actually believed they were going to lower our credit rating. They’re not going to lower our credit rating. They never were.

xblade on August 2, 2011 at 10:19 PM

Is this the same omniscient xblade who admonished me that “no one is saying Palin shouldn’t run” right before the poll came out showing 40% of Republican’s didn’t?

Yeah, I read the Bloomberg piece. The very first sentence is quite telling:

Moody’s Investors Service and Fitch Ratings affirmed their AAA credit ratings for the U.S. while warning that the ratings could be downgraded if lawmakers fail to enact debt reduction measures and the economy weakens.

Would you like to go on record right now that our rating will not be downgraded in the next 18 months because more cuts were not contained in this deal?

Dreadnought on August 2, 2011 at 10:43 PM
What wrong with that? To get the nomination she will have to make friends with all sides of the party. Just because you don’t like her doesn’t mean that others can’t be convinced.

Cindy Munford on August 2, 2011 at 11:14 PM

I would say there is nothing wtong with it, but it’s a quite a disconnect from her comments last week, and also, I doubt some of her supporters would feel the same way if those same words were coming out of sombody’s else’s mouth.

As far as others being convinced: over the last year or so, I’ve been told that about twenty different events were going to move the masses of Republicans and Independents in her direction, so far the polls and anecdotal evidence indicate that is not happening.

It’s not even a “political victory” in the long run. It probably tore the republican party in two. I’m not voting for another one of them. The most moderate of the Republican candidates is likely to be nominated, and then defeated by Obama for lack of conservative support. The establishment republicans, which now includes Sara, will then try to blame “conservative extremists” for not voting for them after calling them naive and betraying them.

We need an alternative to the Republican party. This one chews up its freshmen and makes them squishy. It’s fundamentally flawed beyond repair.

As far as others being convinced: over the last year or so, I’ve been told that about twenty different events were going to move the masses of Republicans and Independents in her direction, so far the polls and anecdotal evidence indicate that is not happening.

Dreadnought on August 3, 2011 at 12:03 AM

I use to like Palin, but thought that she needed about ten more years of experience. I’m sure that she can still be an effective leader, but not for conservatives or principled independents. The first read flag was her statement supporting amnesty. I hoped that it was just her inexperience showing, regarding something that she hadn’t thought though. But she had all the time and help she needed to think though the budget.

Considering both her lapses in judgment, I think that she’s morally damaged in a way that won’t improve with experience, at least not this kind of experience. She seems to believe that compromise is the path to success, failing to fully anticipate the likely unintended consequences of compromising with evil. I think that she’s on the path to becoming a successful leader… of moderates, and may even become president some day. But she won’t accomplish much more than delaying the inevitable financial collapse of the nation for a few more years — leaving an even greater debt to enslave our kids and grandkids.

Sarah Palin said that though Tea Party members are used to being labeled as racists and inciters of violence, she found it especially appalling that the second in command of the most powerful office in the world would say that Tea Party members are acting like terrorists.

Regarding the debt limit deal, she went on to say that while it is a victory to change the debate toward talking about the debt, there is much more work to be done. She does acknowledge that the debt limit deal is a step in the right direction but she doesn’t like giving what she believes may be the most liberal President in US history another 2 trillion dollars that we don’t have with no major reforms:

I think that’s more to the point of what she actually said than this misleading headline here.

Considering both her lapses in judgment, I think that she’s morally damaged

elfman on August 3, 2011 at 9:12 AM

Danny, Danny, Danny…morally damaged?…

Gohawgs on August 3, 2011 at 10:25 AM

At the risk of being far too presumptive, I think he meant “mortally damaged.” Still wrong either way.

gryphon202 on August 3, 2011 at 10:29 AM

“If” someone compromises with evil and rewards those acting illegally with disastrous results, how is that not a moral issue? One time may be a error, twice it the beginning of a pattern that’s not likely to improve as she becomes more integrated into big league politics.

“If” someone compromises with evil and rewards those acting illegally with disastrous results, how is that not a moral issue? One time may be a error, twice it the beginning of a pattern that’s not likely to improve as she becomes more integrated into big league politics.

elfman on August 3, 2011 at 10:57 AM

Blow it out your hole, moron. For better or for worse, Sarah Palin has done everything she said she would and has left me with no doubt as to where she stands on the vast majority of issues. If you really believe there are less morally compromised politicians than her, then I have a bridge to sell you.

I understand how a “misunderstanding” can happen when the headline/text is inaccurate. Many don’t always watch the embedded vids (me) and therefore go with the text and/or their perception of the topic. However, if something sounds fishy it probably is…

I understand how a “misunderstanding” can happen when the headline/text is inaccurate. Many don’t always watch the embedded vids (me) and therefore go with the text and/or their perception of the topic. However, if something sounds fishy it probably is…

Tina mischaracterised what Palin said when she wrote the headline and has been chastised elsewhere in the thread for doing so.

Gohawgs on August 3, 2011 at 11:09 AM

I just skimmed most of the first page while listening to most of the interview, and quit when I heard “It’s a steep in the right direction.” If she supports the deal, which that implies, the rest of her remarks were just “hot air”, and she’s just politicking and rationalizing her moral collapse like most of the other politicians who voted for the bill.

If you really believe there are less morally compromised politicians than her….

gryphon202 on August 3, 2011 at 11:03 AM

I’m going from the presumption that Palin supports this bill raising the debt ceiling (and amnesty). I don’t know the moral characters of all politicians, but the ones who didn’t support compromising way what I think was our last best chance to avoid a more severe melt down that cripples my kids’ future are contenders.

I’m going from the presumption that Palin supports this bill raising the debt ceiling (and amnesty). I don’t know the moral characters of all politicians, but the ones who didn’t support compromising way what I think was our last best chance to avoid a more severe melt down that cripples my kids’ future are contenders.

elfman on August 3, 2011 at 11:53 AM

You’re starting with facts not in evidence. She never supported the bill. When you stopped watching the video at the “…victory for the tea party…” blurb, you missed the part where she said she thought it was a mistake to raise the debt ceiling. And she didn’t qualify that. She congratulated the Tea Party for changing the direction and tone of the debate and noted that “…we still have a lot more work to do.”

Tina Korbe, if you’re reading this, you did Sarah Palin NO FAVORS with your shoddy headline. I’m not normally one to complain about the quality of blog posts around here, but this one was atrocious on a few levels.

My 6 & 8 year old boys make more emotionally balanced and substantive arguments from what you’ve posted to me. Don’t post to me unless you can support your positions and stop the name calling.

elfman on August 3, 2011 at 12:00 PM

Well just because you’re not name calling doesn’t mean that your arguments are “substantive” or “emotionally balanced,” Elfy. There are certainly days when I’d get eaten alive by the sharks at the Oxford Club, and this may even be one of those days, but we’re not at the Oxford Club. You are free to ignore me — though I doubt you will.

She also said the bill that did raise the debt ceiling, “was a step in the right direction”. How do you reconcile those two statements?

elfman on August 3, 2011 at 12:08 PM

C’mon, you’re supposed to like “little girls“…Palin said that it was a step in the right direction because raising taxes wasn’t being talked about rather cutting spending was…She the went on to list some problems with the bill. She was already on record, a week ago, as being against a deal to raise the debt limit…

She also said the bill that did raise the debt ceiling, “was a step in the right direction”. How do you reconcile those two statements?

elfman on August 3, 2011 at 12:08 PM

Nice try on playing with words and trying to link them together, but that’s not what she said. The move in the right direction refered to the point that for the first time the Country will now be focusing on debt reduction.

She also said the bill that did raise the debt ceiling, “was a step in the right direction”. How do you reconcile those two statements?

elfman on August 3, 2011 at 12:08 PM

She has been saying for months now, that we should not raise the debt ceiling at all, if she were in Congress she would vote against it, that the executive branch can prioritize what gets paid and what doesn’t, she was strongly in support of Cut Cap Balance.

She also said, way back in that Fox News Sunday interview that she realized the debt ceiling would in fact be raised because there was sufficient political will on both sides of the aisle in DC to do it, even though she did not think it had to be done.

The other part of this is she is trying to encourage the Tea Party Americans to recognize that compared to a few short years ago, they have accomplished a major shift in the focus of the debate in DC already, which is actually the truth. Take heart in your progress to date, while recognizing there is much more work to be done and the fight has just started it is not over by any means.

There is no contradiction in those comments.

She has never said the actual bill, or the deal itself, is the “victory”.

The victory is a small one, that the debate has changed from an automatic increase in debt without much comment, to a real fight that cost Obama.

When the numbers in the House and Senate are better, the results will be better. A conservative President to sign into law what that new Congress could pass is crucial to making real significant progress. First you must win the American People.

She also said the bill that did raise the debt ceiling, “was a step in the right direction”. How do you reconcile those two statements?

elfman on August 3, 2011 at 12:08 PM

The “step in the right direction” was that we are not talking about debt reduction and how to cut spending instead of tax increases. To my knowledge, Sarah Palin has never supported debt ceiling increases. So one of us is wrong.

The “step in the right direction” was that we are not talking about debt reduction and how to cut spending instead of tax increases. To my knowledge, Sarah Palin has never supported debt ceiling increases. So one of us is wrong.

I just listened to the relevant portion of the interview, from where Gretta introduced how the debate had shifted (which it hasn’t) to where Palin said that “it” was a victory and then later that it was a step in the right direction. It’s not clear what “it” is because the conversation went back and forth between 1) the debate topic, 2) the bill, and perhaps 3) the overall political/ideological battle (debatetopic – budgetbill = step in right direction). Palin often speaks in short hand without making the context clear.

The fact that Palin said that she didn’t support raising the debt ceiling means little because she was a strong supporter of CC&B which raises the debt ceiling.

People are going to read what they want into her statements. I’ll withhold judgment on Palin’s potential moral compromise until that’s clarified.

Wow. Sarah’s comments to Hannity Tues night make crystal clear she thinks the “debt deal” is crap, she thinks Romney’s late and weak rejection of it is crap, she thinks the Pres and the Dems who are ragging on the tea party are crap, and she doesn’t want us getting discouraged.

CC&B, as I understand it, balances spending in 6 or so years at limits that at least don’t cripple the economy. Palin’s bill… ha, just kidding… Boehner/Reid’s bill cuts noting by spending more each year, indirectly forces tax increases, spends well over 1 trillion $ more each year into infinity, covers Obama through the election, makes republicans complicit in it – thereby dividing many conservatives and principled independents from the republican party and doesn’t change the focus of the debate.

It’s been clarified. If watching that video wasn’t good enough for you. I’ll put you on my list of PDSers.

gryphon202 on August 3, 2011 at 1:05 PM

I just explained why it hasn’t been clarified from all the information on this page. My arguments are well reasoned and supported, but because we don’t agree, you fly into little emotional tirades and change the subject. I don’t care what list you put me on. I won’t be reading your posts.

I pointed you here on another thread, telling you that I watched the video twice, but you take that out of context and present it as if I’m uninformed. No one could be more diligent, thoughtful, civil and sincere than I’ve been here while two others try to flame me (as if irrational insults have any effect), and now you respond with this little snip.

There’s a little enclave of craziness here. I heard the term Palinistas, never investigated, but didn’t have to. Here they are.

I’m guessing that Palin has been persecuted for so long and her supporters have invested so much in helping her survive, fighting back where she couldn’t, that the possibility that she meant “moving in the right direction” on the budget deal can’t be considered. Some who’ve fought PDS for so long now act in its mirror image. Benefit of the doubt is reasonable. But reflexive anger and insults rather than rationally examining the evidence is destructive to both themselves and to their goals. It’s sad to see.

I tried to explain to you what she meant, because I understood it clearly

Yes, that was thoughtful, the most substantive reply, and I responded to it and what others said in detail here. I pointed out how her saying she won’t raise the debt ceiling contradicts her support of CC&B. So she apparently will raise the debt ceiling under some circumstances. After two reviews of the interview, it’s not clear to me what a “step in the right direction” means, and I have good ear for parsing words.

It’s clear that she hates this bill. Half the the republicans who voted for it hate it and speak just as forcefully against the horrors that it contains.

…yet you insist she has joined the support for the deal, when she has not.

I insist on nothing but the need for confirmation. I posted that on the QOTD thread to you. I withdrew my claim that she supports the debt deal early yesterday and said that I’d withhold judgment until it’s clarified. I listed your interpretation as one of the 3 possibilities. Did you mis that? I don’t expect supporters to agree, but I do expect them to either tolerate my disbelief or disprove it before acting like children. You’re not one of them, but I am surprised at your replies.